Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.

Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Congress is currently working to pass a resolution to name the WW1 massacre of Armenian's a genocide. Meanwhile, Turkey is saying that taking such a measure would cause them to stop doing business with the U.S., as well as possibly hurting the United States ability to use Turkey as a staging ground for anything in the Middle East.

It's fairly easy to see the cons with going forward with this resolution. Turkey is an important ally for the U.S. However, is there some inherant duty to labeling history correctly? Is it okay to denounce Holocaust deniers while doing so ourselves in order to keep relations with the offending country?

It seems to me that there is an ethical duty to lable this event a genocide. Even by the most liberal definitions, the shoe fits. However, there is no denying it will hurt our (U.S.) interests.

TLDR: Does our ethical duty trump our national interests?

[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

wrote:

When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'

Posts

Turkey does what it wants to. If they see a benefit from acting as our ally, they'll act as our ally. If they see a benefit from doing business with us, they'll do business with us. They're as realpolitik-y as we are, and they won't be swayed one way or the other by whether we point out that they pulled a total dick move a century ago.

That said, I don't see much in the way of an upshot from this move, either. I guess maybe we can score some brownie points from our 1 or 2 remaining supporters in Europe.

ElJeffe on October 2007

Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

Turkey is a very strange country when it comes to national pride. You can get arrested for "speaking out against the spirit of Turkey" or somesuch, though I hear some more progressive parties want to axe that law.

While it's pretty ridiculous that Turkey refuses to believe that the deaths of over a million Armenians could have been genocide (if I'm not mistaken, this is one of the issues keeping them out of the EU), I've never been a fan of "resolutions" like this that really don't change anything.

Firstly, the Armenian genocide occured nearly 100 years ago, this is more an issue of historical classification than of apologizing for inaction (I mean, we did eventually come to fight against the Ottomans).

But in terms of why we don't do anything about genocide occuring now, that's because for the most part we can't do much about it without an occupation. For Rwanda and Darfur, we had landlocked regions that requires cooperation with the country's not-so-friendly neighbors (Tanzania and the DRC for Rwanda, and Egypt for Darfur) to string across supply lines if we are going to do a selective occupation. With Kosovo we had friendly neighbors and naval bases to supply from to fight the genocide.

I really don't think this is about labeling history correctly. In my mind it's either to please Armenian lobbyists or a sly way to help the troop pullout start. We do lose a couple of military bases from this after all if this passes. Yeah I'm totally on the why not label Darfur a genocide band wagon. I'm not for the war in Iraq but it seems very dense to me to alienate a key Muslim ally in the region during war time.

I don't think it's our ethical duty to correctly label a genocide that happened over 70 years ago, when there are more pressing matters at hand like Darfur and what is happening in Myanmar. What would be accomplished if this passed? The current Turkish government was not responsible for the genocide so there would be no compensation, maybe a genocide museum in New York or Washington DC?

Turkey is a very strange country when it comes to national pride. You can get arrested for "speaking out against the spirit of Turkey" or somesuch, though I hear some more progressive parties want to axe that law.

Hmm World War 2? Can we say that the practice is a bit out of fashion and that the president actually decides who we go to war with? Because he or she pretty much does, by deploying the troops (and good luck to your career if you don't "support the boys" with funding). So let's stop being foolish shall we? Great.

I don't think we need to pass a resolution about it. So long as historians label it correctly, that is really all that matters.

Derrick on October 2007

Steam and CFN: Enexemander

0

amateurhourOne day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered Userregular

I agree with the fact that it should be labeled as genocide so that future generations can learn from our mistakes. Having said that, it should be up to them to decide how they want to write their history. If they want to call it something else and it's part of their history and background, then that's their call.

If we're going to start updating the history books we need to quit deleting all of our own history, specifically the civil war. And when it is actually mentioned, we need to stop saying "it was because of slavery... the south lost, the end..."

Within 100 years of being formed our country went through a terrible, bloody civil war, that we're still recovering from to this day in a lot of parts of the country (the south). That's something we need to accept and learn from so that it doesn't happen again. I'm from the south, and it pisses me off every time I go to some gas station and the old timers are bitching about "liberal this and (explitive) that!, and how we need to just leave the US again and start our own country.... " They tell this shit to their kids, and the history books in school don't do anything to help.

With Kosovo we had friendly neighbors and naval bases to supply from to fight the genocide.

The ethnic cleansing didn't start until after NATO began bombing.

Ethically, I'd say we have a duty to step in when genocide is occuring but I can't realistically see any government doing it on their own unless they see definite advantage in doing so - especially with the supply line problems as you mentioned.

I agree with the fact that it should be labeled as genocide so that future generations can learn from our mistakes.

The thing is, it not just the history-angle and "learning from the past's mistakes." The labelling of what happened as 'genocide' is important to any survivors and their descendants, as the systematic killing of their friends and families for the sole reason of race.

My parents live in Rwanda and I have met quite a few genocide-survivors. One of the main things that was important to them after 1994 was the recognition of the world that what had happened in Rwanda was not civil war or tribal in-fighting, but the systematic (and planned) wiping out of Tutsi's and anyone who refused to kill them by the (Hutu) Government and Army.

I agree with the fact that it should be labeled as genocide so that future generations can learn from our mistakes.

The thing is, it not just the history-angle and "learning from the past's mistakes." The labelling of what happened as 'genocide' is important to any survivors and their descendants, as the systematic killing of their friends and families for the sole reason of race.

My parents live in Rwanda and I have met quite a few genocide-survivors. One of the main things that was important to them after 1994 was the recognition of the world that what had happened in Rwanda was not civil war or tribal in-fighting, but the systematic (and planned) wiping out of Tutsi's and anyone who refused to kill them by the (Hutu) Government and Army.

Having said that, it should be up to them to decide how they want to write their history. If they want to call it something else and it's part of their history and background, then that's their call.

But, as we all know, the victors write history. Turkey won't call it a genocide, but the Armenians need someone to push for their right to have their history recorded.

That's a really good point, and I'm sure Turkey isn't actually going to embargo us goods just because we said "Hey, you should really think about acknowlodging this properly so that the future children know exactly what went down..."

I just don't think we as congress, and therefore the country, should push the issue too hard without a lot of support from other countries to do the same. It always ends badly for us and makes us come off as this asshole nation that shoves it's nose in other's business, and it gets old after a while to hear. We might be misguided, but I feel like for the most part we just try to do the right thing.

The "why Armenia and not Darfur" argument is ridiculous. It's like the people who say "why solve problem X when there's still starvation in Africa". Just because there are bigger, more pressing issues out there doesn't mean you have to put everything else on hold until they are solved.

What are the advantages of recognizing the Armenian genocide as such? For one thing, learning from our mistakes. Historians believe that the Armenian genocide served as a template for the Holocaust. Other genocides are going on right now. Maybe if we stop refusing to acknowledge past genocides, we can actually start facing present ones and prevent future ones. For another thing, it puts pressure on Turkey to actually admit their mistake, instead of pretending their history is all rosy and 1.5 million Armenians just disappeared for no apparent reason one day. Finally, it brings the US a moral step up, something it seriously needs after the past six years.

So what are the advantages of refusing to recognize the Armenian genocide as such? Pleasing an ally that, as ElJeffe pointed out, has every reason to want to remain your ally regardless of what you say about the Armenian genocide.

Refusing to recognize the Armenian genocide sends the message that you're willing to overlook genocides if it fits with your short-term military advantages. It also lowers you to equal status with the government of Iran, who is also denying a genocide, the Holocaust, because it fits with its best interests to feed the anti-Israeli sentiment. And it opens you up to a nice slippery slope. You're willing to refuse to recognize the deaths of 1.5M people for a military base next to the Middle-East, so what about a base in Russia next to China. Could be tactically useful, and all it would take is to refuse to acknowledge the downside of Stalinism.

I agree with the fact that it should be labeled as genocide so that future generations can learn from our mistakes. Having said that, it should be up to them to decide how they want to write their history. If they want to call it something else and it's part of their history and background, then that's their call.

I think you might want to think about that some more. By that logic it would be fine if the Germans chose to deny the holocaust happened.

If we're going to start updating the history books we need to quit deleting all of our own history, specifically the civil war. And when it is actually mentioned, we need to stop saying "it was because of slavery... the south lost, the end..."

Within 100 years of being formed our country went through a terrible, bloody civil war, that we're still recovering from to this day in a lot of parts of the country (the south). That's something we need to accept and learn from so that it doesn't happen again. I'm from the south, and it pisses me off every time I go to some gas station and the old timers are bitching about "liberal this and (explitive) that!, and how we need to just leave the US again and start our own country.... " They tell this shit to their kids, and the history books in school don't do anything to help.

Maybe it's because I'm from California, but I'm confused about the bolded parts. For my American history class, a substantial fraction of the book covered the Civil war and the events leading to and following it. I don't exactly have frequent conversations about the Civil War, but in those I have had I've never heard anything to suggest other people didn't likewise cover the war in detail in the appropriate class.

And when it is actually mentioned, we need to stop saying "it was because of slavery... the south lost, the end..."

While there were other factors involved, slavery was by far the biggest issue.

The "why Armenia and not Darfur" argument is ridiculous. It's like the people who say "why solve problem X when there's still starvation in Africa". Just because there are bigger, more pressing issues out there doesn't mean you have to put everything else on hold until they are solved.

What are the advantages of recognizing the Armenian genocide as such? For one thing, learning from our mistakes. Historians believe that the Armenian genocide served as a template for the Holocaust. Other genocides are going on right now. Maybe if we stop refusing to acknowledge past genocides, we can actually start facing present ones and prevent future ones. For another thing, it puts pressure on Turkey to actually admit their mistake, instead of pretending their history is all rosy and 1.5 million Armenians just disappeared for no apparent reason one day. Finally, it brings the US a moral step up, something it seriously needs after the past six years.

So what are the advantages of refusing to recognize the Armenian genocide as such? Pleasing an ally that, as ElJeffe pointed out, has every reason to want to remain your ally regardless of what you say about the Armenian genocide.

Refusing to recognize the Armenian genocide sends the message that you're willing to overlook genocides if it fits with your short-term military advantages. It also lowers you to equal status with the government of Iran, who is also denying a genocide, the Holocaust, because it fits with its best interests to feed the anti-Israeli sentiment. And it opens you up to a nice slippery slope. You're willing to refuse to recognize the deaths of 1.5M people for a military base next to the Middle-East, so what about a base in Russia next to China. Could be tactically useful, and all it would take is to refuse to acknowledge the downside of Stalinism.

Well my argument for Darfur is that we all here can basically agree that it is genocide I hope, however the US government does not recognize it as such. So the US government is saying that a genocide that happened during World War 1 is more important to be recognized as genocide then a current genocide. I really don't see how this gives the USA a "moral step up" when we are not recognizing a current genocide. Hey I'm not advocating an invasion of Sudan, I'm just saying maybe a press release recognizing it is a genocide would give us much more of a "moral step up" then recognizing something that can not be stopped because it already happened. Yeah I know about that international law says that we have to act if we say something is genocide, so it will never happen. Also the whole learning from past genocides sure looks like we have learned a lot from Rwanda seeing how we are handling Darfur so well.

Edit
Anyone know if we recognize what we did to the Native Americans as genocide? Just wondering. Turkey could just pass a bill that says that and we could be cool again .

No states rights was the biggest issue, well as far as my US history class went over it, it was. Genocides are terrible, pretending they don't exist is almost as bad. Fuck turkey.

Correct.

Different schools use different books, but it just seems to me in recent years the civil war hasn't had as much coverage as it deserves. I know that you're trying to cram a lot of information into a relatively short period of time, but I think since it is the US schools we're talking about, and it's the second biggest piece of our history, next to the revolution itself, it needs to be studied more. I'd like to see at least a full term in upper level high school (say sophomore or junior year) devoted to it. That's just me though...

No states rights was the biggest issue, well as far as my US history class went over it, it was. Genocides are terrible, pretending they don't exist is almost as bad. Fuck turkey.

The states rights issue was almost solely used to justify the expansion of slavery. At no point prior to the war itself (and even for the first couple years of the war, until the Emancipation Proclamation) was it the intention of the governments of the northern states to repeal slavery in the states in which it already existed, only to limit its expansion. Even the Emancipation Proclamation itself only affected the Confederate States, which shows that (initially) it was a political tool aimed at enticing states to return to the Union (as states who returned within the several month grace period would actually be able to keep their slaves) after the war had started rather than an earnest attempt to free all slaves.

It's not as if the Confederate states went to war to protect the states' rights of newly formed territories either, as demonstrated when they and the northerners both tried to rig the Kansas elections to support their side of the slavery issue shortly prior to the war.

Smasher on October 2007

0

amateurhourOne day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered Userregular

The northern states outnumbered the southern states, which caused every single vote to go in favor of the north. Every time the south would gain another territory to try and even things up the north would offset this. Then there was the horrible tactic on both sides to declare slaves as more or less than one whole person for the use of voting numbers.

I'm not saying slavery wasn't an issue, and it was an underlying issue on a lot of things, but it wasn't the MAIN issue as to why the civil war broke out.

TThen there was the horrible tactic on both sides to declare slaves as more or less than one whole person for the use of voting numbers.

It was the south that wanted slaves to count as a whole person, btw. The north didn't, because the slave population would pad the south's demographics and give them a huge advantage in determining the number of representatives per state.

Maybe you knew this, but I just often here people saying something to the effect of "We were so nasty back then we didn't even want to count slaves as whole people!" which is a faulty interpretation of the issue.

ElJeffe on October 2007

Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

Congress has the power to declare war not the president, but yeah itâ€™s easy to forget that lately.

Congress declaring war on Sudan isn't exactly the instrument that yields a solution to Darfur. For instance, even if Congress declares war it doesn't mean the President as commander in chief has to order a single soldier their. Or do anything at all for that matter.

It was rather stupid and grandstanding thing for congress to do right now. That said, all available evidence really seems to verify the Armenian genocide and also Turkey has to be the most infantile, puerile, hypersensitive nation on earth. Seriously, I'm almost supportive of the declaration if only because I'm really fucking sick of Turkey.

It was rather stupid and grandstanding thing for congress to do right now. That said, all available evidence really seems to verify the Armenian genocide and also Turkey has to be the most infantile, puerile, hypersensitive nation on earth. Seriously, I'm almost supportive of the declaration if only because I'm really fucking sick of Turkey.

It was rather stupid and grandstanding thing for congress to do right now. That said, all available evidence really seems to verify the Armenian genocide and also Turkey has to be the most infantile, puerile, hypersensitive nation on earth. Seriously, I'm almost supportive of the declaration if only because I'm really fucking sick of Turkey.

A non-binding resolution to consider calling the killing of 1.5M people a century ago a genocide is grandstanding? As in "acting so as to impress onlookers"? Because if it was suppose to impress me, it failed.

The northern states outnumbered the southern states, which caused every single vote to go in favor of the north. Every time the south would gain another territory to try and even things up the north would offset this. Then there was the horrible tactic on both sides to declare slaves as more or less than one whole person for the use of voting numbers.

I'm not saying slavery wasn't an issue, and it was an underlying issue on a lot of things, but it wasn't the MAIN issue as to why the civil war broke out.

What issues would the south be outvoted on that didn't pertain to slavery?

No states rights was the biggest issue, well as far as my US history class went over it, it was.

Modern historiography disagrees with you. The only major differences in the constitutions of the U.S.A and the Confederacy were that in the Confederacy Presidents served for 6 years rather than four, secession was made explicitly legal and slavery was given a much more explicit status. Now, unless the South really wanted their Presidents to have those two extra years, or really wanted to go around seceding at the drop of the hat, the only major difference there was the bit about slavery, which is what they seceded over in the first place. Does "we want to secede because you won't let us secede!" make any sense at all?

Of course now someone will come in and say "BUT LINCOLN DIDN'T EVEN WANT TO ABOLISH SLAVERY, OBVIOUSLY THE WAR IS NOT ABOUT SLAVERY", completely missing the point.

And maybe then, a fan of the Marxist interpretation will come in and say, "you guys are dumb, it was clearly economic interests which drove the war", trumpeting an argument which most other people figured out was retarded 40 years ago.

Most modern historians agree that it was the way slavery interacted with westward expansion which caused the war. As more territories were being added above the 36 degree 30 line, the South was growing ever more fearful of a growing imbalance in the Senate towards the North. They were afraid of this because they were afraid that the North would wish to abolish slavery, which was so central to the Southern way of life. This was, in large part, a total misreading of the situation, as most people in the North were happy with slavery existing where it did, but didn't want it to spread. Of course, when Lincoln was elected, a result that was made damn near inevitable after the Democratic party split itself into sections after the events of Bleeding Kansas and Stephen Douglas' wrong answer (to the South) about the Dredd - Scott decision in the Lincoln/Douglas debates, the South realised that the North could elect a president without them. A President they really, really hated, because they were convinced he was an abolitionist by fire eaters in the South, despite Lincoln's clearly moderate platform. So they seceded, because they felt slavery was threatened, and thus their way of life.

So yes, slavery was pretty much the cause of the Civil War, just not in the way that that statement would first make it seem. North really wanted abolition, because slavery was evil and so they had a war is what the statement makes it sounds like, but no one means it this way.

*ahem*

To try and veer a little on topic, I think the practical need to have Turkey on your side and not fucking with the Kurds far outweighs honouring some dead Armenians.

Turkey has threatened "serious repercussions" if this, ultimately meaningless, vote goes through. Any rational person can see what those repercussions could entail:

- Ending US operations at Incirlik Air Base
- Invading Kurdistan

What does the motion accomplish other than obvious vote-pandering to... well the people who care, which I assume are Democrats because it's a Democratic congress and as far as I can see it's Pelossi who is pushing the bill? I mean, Incirlik is pretty damn important. Around 70% of the supplies for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are flown out of there. The US is already looking for alternatives to the airbase. And Kurdistan is one of the few bright spots resulting from this clusterfuck of an occupation and if (when) Turkey goes in there... Don't really want to think about it.

I don't know. Calling sabotage is juvenile, but that's the ultimate effect this will have on the War, if Turkey does what it seems likely to do. The vote could be far more negative in it's practical effect on the U.S.A than the benefit the symbolic gesture will bring.